Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-front

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thong. Discounting the IPs and SPAs. I doubt that experienced editors would want to want to merge this cringeworthily bad content ("intercrural cords had a physical ground to protect the most sensitive and unprotected part of the women body"), but if anybody really wants to, it's in the history. Sandstein 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T-front[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janholyjanholy. I don't think this is a real thing outside of one company's product catalogue. The broader topic of revealing undergarments is already covered by articles like G-string and thong. Cheers, gnu 57 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janholyjanholy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt T-front concept is a real thing, totally independent on any single manufacturer. Simple Google search of its Japan translation mentioned also in the wiki article ( Tフロント ) proves this easily, major e-shops like Rakuten offer this style in many variants and made by many different manufacturers:

https://search.rakuten.co.jp/search/mall/Tフロント/

Also in Europe, except of the "one company" referred in the complain, also other manufacturers offer T-front garments, see e.g.:

http://www.plavky.cz/e-shop/_626-626---damske-body.htm

As for the mentioned "one company" active in European market, many product reviews dealing with T-fronts are available, so T-fronts are obviously not only shown in catalogues, see e.g.:

https://blog.scaredpanties.com/t-front-underwear-ps-ling/

http://estylingerie.com/2020/07/16/ps-lings-t-front-lingerie-sportswear/

https://comicsgirlsneedbras.com/2019/03/06/ps-ling-underwear-t-front-thong-review/

https://www.lingerielowdown.com/tag/brand-ps-ling/

And the amount of the "one company" customers can be easily guessed e.g. from their Instagram page.

Also, the T-front term includes also pearl thongs which ara not covered by common terms "g-string" or similar:

https://www.amazon.ca/YiZYiF-G-String-T-Front-Panties-Underwear/dp/B0728FM3GB

Hope these points justify the existence of the term T-front in Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janholyjanholy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The T-front intercrural garment should be retained as a distinct entry. The authors note the anthropological origin of this design from the uluri belts which are common among South American tribes. This is a waist belt with a small triangular ornament and from which an intercrural cord extends to cover the rima pudenda (pudendal cleft). The intercrural cords have a physical function in protecting the most sensitive part of the body with a minimum of concealment, as well as being a indication of sexual maturity and fertility. <ref> Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Voume 1, Havelock Ellis. Therefore it would not be appropriate to define the T-front merely as a design variant within the general sub-category of underwear such as thongs or G-strings, as this would not reflect the distinct design features of the T-front linked to the origin as described from the uluri belt (which is also the only reference to this garment within Wikepedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:472F:E501:9D1D:1311:1265:B6F (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC) — 2A00:23C5:472F:E501:9D1D:1311:1265:B6F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP It is clear to me that T-front really is a real thing, independent from any single company: https://www.inquisitr.com/6429215/holly-sonders-t-front-thong It should be therefore kept.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.125.143 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — 91.125.125.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keeps are majority SPAs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant cultural content to Thong, and redirect to maintain edit history for GFDL purposes only. It is doubtful that it is independently notable enough to sustain an article. Tellingly, none of the sources cited in the article actually contain the phrase, "T-front". I also note that a table at Thong references "T-front" as a style, but this was added by an editor whose only edits are on this subject. BD2412 T 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can agree to a merge with existing article as proposed in this case. It is already referenced there so it should be easy to add to the existing article. Nothing in the sources provided would be considered reliable, independent or secondary even though it may be seen as SIGCOV. Merge seems appropriate. --ARose Wolf 17:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While assuming good faith, I share the concerns about the "Keep" !votes above with no prior contributions and two seemingly single purpose accounts voting the same style, manner and using the same general arguments with no reference to policy or guideline, even implied. This should simply be taken into consideration, among all the other factors, by the closer when making a final decision. --ARose Wolf 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the two "keep" votes above: T-front has quite a lot of supporters (for instance, certain social network has more than 13.000 members organized in a nsfw group, exchanging their own pictures and information about where to buy these garments etc.). I assume the above single-time contributors may come from there.

Finally, let me summarize the facts from various contributions above, and please correct me if anything there is not correct: 1. Multiple manufacturers sell T-front garments and are using this name. 2. The term T-front is used by numerous eshops active in Amazon, Rakuten and so on. 3. The term T-front is used in news and media.

Thank you, Janholyjanholy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is serve to prove the point that there is nothing inherently notable about it and that BD2412 and others are correct in their assessment it should be merged into the other article where it is already mentioned. --ARose Wolf 21:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Janholyjanholy: Show me the news and media using this term, and discussing the concept in any depth beyond describing it as a variant of the g-string or thong. BD2412 T 22:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sure, as above: https://www.inquisitr.com/6429215/holly-sonders-t-front-thong/

And the T-front is not necessarily a variant of g-string or thong, these items of various e-shops prove it (please note Tフロント in both item descriptions):

https://www.deep-p.com/smartphone/detail.html?id=000000001809

https://product.rakuten.co.jp/product/-/12c8136e3f049bc2220a4feaa7f29836/

@Tsistunagiska: But if you agree with my summarizing statements above, doesn't that mean that all the original allegations at the very top of this page are void? Thank you, Janholyjanholy (talk)

E-shops are not usable as sources. The Inquisitr mention is good enough to justify a redirect. Barely. BD2412 T 02:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am not proposing them as sources for any wikipedia article. I am just illustrating current situation in the real world, what should be more appropriate than independent commercially available products? Thank you. Janholyjanholy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Janholyjanholy Wikipedia does not care what is important in the real world unless it is written or discussed in sources it deems as reliable and secondary. The means by which those sources are deemed reliable is through consensus, not on a single AfD page or even two or three or four. There is a process of consensus built over time. If it is not discussed in-depth in reliable sources then it doesn't have a stand alone article. --ARose Wolf 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsistunagiska Understood, your general (and surely correct) statement is hard to react to and sounds like concluding this discussion. Obviously, due to very intimate and for most people indecent nature of T-fronts it is difficult to expect any wider coverage by sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia.

I have presented my summarizing arguments already, proving the original allegations are void and therefore there is no reason for T-front article deletion. Merging it with Thong is acceptable but a bit innacurate. Let us leave the rest for the final decision which I understand will not be easy. Thank you. Janholyjanholy (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.